Reparations To Developing Nations?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
Here is a topic that always fuels it self up, reparations!

What do you personally think? Should first world nations that made much of their wealth through colonization and neo-colonialism give back the wealth that was taken from developing countries?

All that gold taken from Africa, Silver from Mexico, Tea from India, and lots of other valuable resources that Europe lacked but the rest of the world had! Should Europe now give back what they took?

Also, do you think the first world deserve the wealth of others?

Do you think it was right or wrong of the first world to do such thing?

Do you think the First World owes anything to the Third world?

This should be a very very interesting topic.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
I think you will open Pandora's Box with such idiotic questions.
You'll be asking for a lot of answers which will not have a thing to do with reality and will only provide for a propaganda platform of fallacious reasoning.
Won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Texas Bill
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
Nal0whs said:
Here is a topic that always fuels it self up, reparations!

What do you personally think? Should first world nations that made much of their wealth through colonization and neo-colonialism give back the wealth that was taken from developing countries?.
Nope.
Nal0whs said:
All that gold taken from Africa, Silver from Mexico, Tea from India, and lots of other valuable resources that Europe lacked but the rest of the world had! Should Europe now give back what they took?.
Nope
Nal0whs said:
Also, do you think the first world deserve the wealth of others? .
Yes. They earned it.
Nal0whs said:
Do you think it was right or wrong of the first world to do such thing?.
Different era. Different way of doing things. You talk like it was wrong. It was won fair and square.
Nal0whs said:
Do you think the First World owes anything to the Third world?.
Besides encouraging them to open up their markets and decentralize their economies, not a damn thing!
Nal0whs said:
This should be a very very interesting topic.
Not really.
Frankly I feel asking people to pay for alleged mis-deeds from 100's of years back is just silly.
 
Tony C, that was going to be my response.

First the countries that made their wealth through the methods described, first would have to admit it was wrong. In their eyes it wasn't, so you will not get the answers you expect to hear given the beliefs of many posters who are generally across the board very conservative and/or whose ancestors probably orginated from those countries.

In the eyes of people who are able to dominiate others, its all about "only the strong shall survive", and it is a since of pride knowing your forfathers had the ability to gain advanced technologies qucker than the dominiated countries and use the technologies to dominate. Thats what it all boils down to.

Have you ever watched the news when they show the symbolic kings and queens of england, spain, etc who respresent the age of the empires that colonized the world. As they parade down the street you see the since of pride with tears that is still held by the general populous today, even in the States we pay homage(excluding me) to the royality of England. They are proud for not only who they are but also for what they accomplished under the flag of that nation as the ruled.

If it was the other way around, I think the same would have happen, because men have the humanistic desire as men to dominate and conqueor others including "woman". so African Countries and others would have done the same if they had the means, but they failed now they must face the consequences.

So the answers you will get will be much similar to what Tony C. say and thats exactly what I would have said, well not exactly, I don't beleive taking is earning and the rich nations are benefitting from the past so you can't say what happen in the past is over, but anyway. But overall this is the realty.


The question you need to ask yourself is, are those countries that were stripped, big and bad enough to take it back, because those dominate countries are not going to give them back. So only time will tell, but don't expect reperations, thats admitting a wrong was comitted and thats something hard for men of power to do.
 
Last edited:

Arve

New member
Oct 13, 2002
114
1
0
I'm a liberal and all that but.. Tony C answered it well: Nope.

Still I would like to add that in the spirit of trade liberalisation, "rich"
countries should work a lot harder than they do towards giving developing
world meaningful market access in the developed world.

Also, one shouldn't run foreign policy according to concepts of what's
right or wrong. Perhaps you can have peace, perhaps you can
have "justice", but there's no way you can have both. IMHO. Ethical
foreign policy.. Bah.. :)
 
Apr 26, 2002
1,806
10
0
Nal0whs said:
Should first world nations that made much of their wealth through colonization and neo-colonialism give back the wealth that was taken from developing countries?
I would settle for the first world simply ending the modern day neo-colonialism of the multilaterial lending and monetary organizations. No reparations needed.
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
To all my Liberal friends on the reparations bandwagon,
Just out of curiosity...
Would these reparations include:
The U.S. demanding reparations from the U.K.?
Florida demanding reparations from Spain, France & the U.K.?
Louisiana demanding reparations from France?
Texas and California demanding reparations from Mexico?
Alaska demanding reparations from Russia?

And last but not least....The D.R. asking for reparations from Haiti?
 
Tony C said:
To all my Liberal friends on the reparations bandwagon,
Just out of curiosity...
Would these reparations include:
The U.S. demanding reparations from the U.K.?
Florida demanding reparations from Spain, France & the U.K.?
Louisiana demanding reparations from France?
Texas and California demanding reparations from Mexico?
Alaska demanding reparations from Russia?

And last but not least....The D.R. asking for reparations from Haiti?

No because Russia sold Alaska to the US
The US conquered Texas and California from Mexico so Mexico would not be obligated.
U.S and UK would not because they signed a peace agreement and hashed everything out in the agreements (more than once)
Florida would not because Spain formally ceded Florida to the United States in 1821, according to terms of the Adams-On?s Treaty.
and finally
President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon.


All have one thing in common that other colonized countries did not....
There was a somewhat gentlemen formality in the above in forms of treaties and agreements in terms of the change of power and control. Reparations would not be valid.

I personally care less about reperations. As a man I would prefer to take it back the same way it was taken even if I had to go out shooting. I prefer not to give the powers-that-be the satisfaction that they are more superior than me because they are not and I'm not going to cry to no man for some damn reparations.

I only responded because I felt your post here was kind of silly because it appears you have limited knowledge about the states and countries you mentioned. It seem to be poor examples to use in your argument.
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
sancochojoe said:
No because Russia sold Alaska to the US
The US conquered Texas and California from Mexico so Mexico would not be obligated..
Actually Texas fought a revolution against Mexico and became a soverign nation. The war with the US was when Texas agreed to be annexed by the US.
sancochojoe said:
U.S and UK would not because they signed a peace agreement and hashed everything out in the agreements (more than once)
Florida would not because Spain formally ceded Florida to the United States in 1821, according to terms of the Adams-On?s Treaty.
and finally
President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon.

All have one thing in common that other colonized countries did not....
There was a somewhat gentlemen formality in the above in forms of treaties and agreements in terms of the change of power and control. Reparations would not be valid.

I personally care less about reperations. As a man I would prefer to take it back the same way it was taken even if I had to go out shooting. I prefer not to give the powers-that-be the satisfaction that they are more superior than me because they are not and I'm not going to cry to no man for some damn reparations..
You talk a big game. I haven't seen you perform yet.

sancochojoe said:
I only responded because I felt your post here was kind of silly because it appears you have limited knowledge about the states and countries you mentioned. It seem to be poor examples to use in your argument.
A agree that reparations for alleged past misdeeds that happened 100's of years ago is silly but apparently it is you who has a limited knowledge of History,
Most independant nations came about after some form of negotiated settlement or treaty. Most African Countries were granted independance by their benefactors. Even most latin American countries came about after some formal surrender or other paperwork in Spain.
WWII was ended by a negotiated settlement as well back in 1945 but there are still people today making claims for reparations in courts and winning.
For those in favor of reparations that is not an issue. They are more intrested in the supposed mis-treatment of the people by their benefactors. They argue that the treaties were signed without consideration of the people.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
Tony C said:
Actually Texas fought a revolution against Mexico and became a soverign nation. The war with the US was when Texas agreed to be annexed by the US.

You talk a big game. I haven't seen you perform yet.


A agree that reparations for alleged past misdeeds that happened 100's of years ago is silly but apparently it is you who has a limited knowledge of History,
Most independant nations came about after some form of negotiated settlement or treaty. Most African Countries were granted independance by their benefactors. Even most latin American countries came about after some formal surrender or other paperwork in Spain.
WWII was ended by a negotiated settlement as well back in 1945 but there are still people today making claims for reparations in courts and winning.
For those in favor of reparations that is not an issue. They are more intrested in the supposed mis-treatment of the people by their benefactors. They argue that the treaties were signed without consideration of the people.

Well, from your first post, yes! Although, Florida and Texas don't have a right to ask the U.S. or whomever for reparations since they are not independent countries themselves in our modern day to day living. However, it depends on how much resources (that created wealth) were extracted from the countries. The US won't have much claim to UK, because the US broke off the UK relatively quickly and the US did not supply the UK with raw materials afterwards, instead the US used its raw materials to build up its economy!

The DR in the other hand, had not had that chance. The DR should ask for reparations from Spain, France, and yes, even Haiti. Since Haiti only has untapped resources, they can grant the right for DR companies to exploit those resources. The other two should just pay up with cash or impose a co-operation program to pull the DR out of being a raw material supplier and turn it into a raw material importer to build up its economy.

Whether this will happen or not is really a totally different debate! What I wanted to know is if people think it should happen, not if it will happen!
 
Nal0whs said:
Whether this will happen or not is really a totally different debate! What I wanted to know is if people think it should happen, not if it will happen!

I think you know that answer. They were all victims of a conquering nation. You tell me in history,even before Christ, would you argue the fact of reparations when empires were created through rape and pilage of weaker nations. If you go by the rules of war, the answer would be no.

and Tony C, you can counter my responses and we can banter about history all you want to no end, but your using of the examples for your argument has not changed my opinion. Silly.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
sancochojoe said:
No because Russia sold Alaska to the US
The US conquered Texas and California from Mexico so Mexico would not be obligated.
U.S and UK would not because they signed a peace agreement and hashed everything out in the agreements (more than once)
Florida would not because Spain formally ceded Florida to the United States in 1821, according to terms of the Adams-On?s Treaty.
and finally
President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon.


All have one thing in common that other colonized countries did not....
There was a somewhat gentlemen formality in the above in forms of treaties and agreements in terms of the change of power and control. Reparations would not be valid.

I personally care less about reperations. As a man I would prefer to take it back the same way it was taken even if I had to go out shooting. I prefer not to give the powers-that-be the satisfaction that they are more superior than me because they are not and I'm not going to cry to no man for some damn reparations.

I only responded because I felt your post here was kind of silly because it appears you have limited knowledge about the states and countries you mentioned. It seem to be poor examples to use in your argument.

Maybe you'd better review your history relative to the US "conquering" Texas!
As a matter of FACT, Texas was a soverign nation from 1836 to 1846 when it's representatives negotiated annexation by the USA! If you're going to quote historical events, then get your facts straight!
In addition, Texas is the ONLY state that Legally ceceded from the USA at the begining of the Civil War because that act was part of the original annexation treaty. That state also reserved the right to further divide itself into East, West, North, South and Central Texas as seperate States under the same treaty. The former condition was rendered moot and the latter condition MAY have been made null and void by the Reconstruction agreement at the end of the Civil War, but I think it is still in effect.
And I agree with you that calls for so-called reparations are ridiculous and without any FIRM basis for doing so.

Texas Bill
 
Texas Bill said:
Maybe you'd better review your history relative to the US "conquering" Texas!
As a matter of FACT, Texas was a soverign nation from 1836 to 1846 when it's representatives negotiated annexation by the USA! If you're going to quote historical events, then get your facts straight!
In addition, Texas is the ONLY state that Legally ceceded from the USA at the begining of the Civil War because that act was part of the original annexation treaty. That state also reserved the right to further divide itself into East, West, North, South and Central Texas as seperate States under the same treaty. The former condition was rendered moot and the latter condition MAY have been made null and void by the Reconstruction agreement at the end of the Civil War, but I think it is still in effect.
And I agree with you that calls for so-called reparations are ridiculous and without any FIRM basis for doing so.

Texas Bill


You guys must understand before we continue history 101. I havn't recognized and I repeat I havn't recognized Texas as a soverign nation. I've always and will always concider a territory taken from Mexico. You guys seem to want to start the History of Texas at 1836. Throw in years 1823, and 1824 or further back. Also a quote "Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico -- another Mexican state at that time -- on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution."

so believe what you want I stand by what I say. Whats in the past is whats in the past but I'm not changing my viewpoint just because American history books say so.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
sancochojoe said:
You guys must understand before we continue history 101. I havn't recognized and I repeat I havn't recognized Texas as a soverign nation. I've always and will always concider a territory taken from Mexico. You guys seem to want to start the History of Texas at 1836. Throw in years 1823, and 1824 or further back. Also a quote "Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico -- another Mexican state at that time -- on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution."

so believe what you want I stand by what I say. Whats in the past is whats in the past but I'm not changing my viewpoint just because American history books say so.

Sancocho, they are right. The Texas deal is one of those quickies in history that most people forget to mention. Texas was an independent republic, the problem was that it didn't lasted long and they merged with the U.S.

Look at Puerto Rico, when the Americans landed near Boqueron in Southwestern Puerto Rico to invade a "Spanish" territory, by that time, Spain had already (by a few months) recognized Puerto Rico as an independent nation. Of course, due to the short time periods, the American invaded and since Washington had not recognized Puerto Rico as a new country, they took it as a Spanish Territory which made it perfect for capturing as part of the Spanish-American War. Again, one of those quickies in history many people have forgotten about!
 
Nal0whs said:
Sancocho, they are right. The Texas deal is one of those quickies in history that most people forget to mention. Texas was an independent republic, the problem was that it didn't lasted long and they merged with the U.S.

Look at Puerto Rico, when the Americans landed near Boqueron in Southwestern Puerto Rico to invade a "Spanish" territory, by that time, Spain had already (by a few months) recognized Puerto Rico as an independent nation. Of course, due to the short time periods, the American invaded and since Washington had not recognized Puerto Rico as a new country, they took it as a Spanish Territory which made it perfect for capturing as part of the Spanish-American War. Again, one of those quickies in history many people have forgotten about!


Yes but they failed to realize those colonist who got permission from Mexico to hang out in Texas decided. Oh, we need to claim our independence. What ever.
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
sancochojoe said:
Yes but they failed to realize those colonist who got permission from Mexico to hang out in Texas decided. Oh, we need to claim our independence. What ever.

The Mexicans that were in Texas were not the ones for the independence. It was the Europeans flowing in from the American Mainland. After they got independence from Mexico, they ceded to the U.S.

Now, Much of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and parts of Nebraska were down right taken from Mexico. The way it was taken was first, Americans moved to that part of Mexico (kind of like the Haitians moving to DR) and once there were enough Americans in what was then Northern Mexico, many of them got the notion that they wanted to be part of their old country (USA) but not want to move from their current homes (Northern Mexico). Before you knew it, Mexicans were fighting the people they welcomed for their land and unfortunately they lost because most of the Mexican troops were fighting the battle fields in the north (Nevada, Colorado, etc) and a brigade of American troops captured Veracruz and marched all the way to Mexico City. Once Mexico City fell, the Mexican succumbed to the Demands of the Americans for the sake of the remainder of their country which was in dangered of being completely annexed into the U.S.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
sancochojoe said:
You guys must understand before we continue history 101. I havn't recognized and I repeat I havn't recognized Texas as a soverign nation. I've always and will always concider a territory taken from Mexico. You guys seem to want to start the History of Texas at 1836. Throw in years 1823, and 1824 or further back. Also a quote "Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico -- another Mexican state at that time -- on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution."

so believe what you want I stand by what I say. Whats in the past is whats in the past but I'm not changing my viewpoint just because American history books say so.

You can rewrite Texas History all you want to but ONLY by ignoring the fact that the then POPULATION rebelled against the administration of Santa Ana and Mexico and WON THEIR INDEPENDANCE by right of battle. They forced a numerically SUPERIOR army to surrender at San Jacinto, captured Santa Ana and released him after he agreed to the formation of an INDEPENDENT NATION of Texas. That nation existed from 1836 until it agreed to annexation(at it's own instigation) by the USA in 1846. And not all the population were "Americans". There were AS MANY Mexicans who also wanted out from under the despotic actions of Santa Ana's rule, which was corrupt, arrogant and totally in denial of the economic plights of "their" state of the Northeast.
So, you can think(and since your post indicates a contrary ability, I seriousoy doubt that ability) anything you like, the FACTS, GLOBAL HISTORY and your own words prove you to be a stupid ignoramus.
Read it and WEEP!

Texas Bill
 
Last edited:

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
Texas Bill said:
You can rewrite Texas History all you want to but ONLY by ignoring the fact that the then POPULATION rebelled against the administration of Santa Ana and Mexico and WON tTHEIR INDEPENDANCE by right of battle. They forced a numerically SUPERIOR army to surrender at San Jacinto, captured Santa Ana and released him after he agreed to the formation of an INDEPENDENT NATION of Texas. That nation existed from 1836 until it agreed to annexation by the USA(at it's own instigation) in 1847. And not all the population were "Americans". There were MANY Mexicans who also wanted out from under the despotic actions of Santa Ana's rule.
So, you can think(???) anything you like, the FACTS, GLOBAL HISTORY and your own words prove you to be a stupid ignoramus.
Read it and WEEP!

Texas Bill

I don't think Texas Bill has the word Texas in his username for nothing. This guy (TB) is a native Texan, so he would know much better than anyone the history of his neck of the woods. With this regard, TB is correct!

Now TB knows how it feels when foreigners (mostly the Haitians on this board) come and tell me what it is to be Dominican and all that bolony, like if they know more than me about MY country. What are we going to do with some of these people? What are we going to do? (By the way, I don't consider SacochoJoe to be an ignorant, I think he has a good way of thinking, except for that Texas History deal).
 
Nal0whs said:
I don't think Texas Bill has the word Texas in his username for nothing. This guy (TB) is a native Texan, so he would know much better than anyone the history of his neck of the woods. With this regard, TB is correct!

Now TB knows how it feels when foreigners (mostly the Haitians on this board) come and tell me what it is to be Dominican and all that bolony, like if they know more than me about MY country. What are we going to do with some of these people? What are we going to do? (By the way, I don't consider SacochoJoe to be an ignorant, I think he has a good way of thinking, except for that Texas History deal).

Thats what you fail to understand. Texans have an unusual way of interpreting the history of Texas. Just to throw something anecdotal, I've just came back from lunch with a bunch of guys from various backgrounds an points of reference. We all got a laugh because they all agreed that its not worth debating about Texas with a Texan because their sense of Texas History is skewed from the start. As you noticed from the start Texas Bill seem to want to start the discussion about Texas at 1836. Typical Texan.
Its like asking an alcoholic if he is an alcoholic or not. You know the answer you are going to get. He even has you defending him in treating Texas as if it is a foreign country.

I grew up in Southern California. I dont need a history lesson about the southwest either. But I know their is a lot more to the history than you guys think their is.

So I guess I'm only qualified to talk about California, Cuba and Jamaica, right. Don't fall into that trap.

My position still stands objectively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.